Jump to content

Larry Baum

Basic Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Anyway I need to wait to get another set of files to really tell what is going on. It's hard with potentially bogus metadata and then not being 100% sure exactly what was done and set for each scan. Some things are still not adding up. And the 5K early samples still ended up with relatively similar color balance in the main image area so you wouldn't think anything should have been so radically different in saturation, etc. (sprocket holes have extremely different color temp, optical track area has only moderately different color temp, might just be sprocket clipping after adjustments applied for the way this system can expose each channel on its own, so may not mean so much and would make you think that the 5K set should not act so differently than the other sets)
  2. Man, I'm starting to think that the initial little batch of a few quick 5K demos I got, that something was set all strangely with them which added a lot to the general confusion along with the seemingly generally bogus metadata in the files. I found another 5K little set that seems to act more like my 6.5K final scans. Who knows at this point after all the confusion, but I suspect it may all come down in the end to: 5K and 6.5K and so on probably will all act the same (which would make more sense) Scanstation probably does scan out data in some moderately wider than REC709 gamut format, perhaps something a trace smaller than P3 (still not 100% sure though and you'd think the true RAW data might be even wider than that, not that wider than that would be needed for film) metadata put out by the scanstation is almost all completely bogus and best ignored, but this also means you need to do some complex type corrections, adjusting primary locations and such (still not 100% sure, but seems likely)
  3. I'm starting to think those initial few quick 5K samples I got maybe had the LED balance on the scanner set in some odd way. Either that or on the new 6.5K files. The thing that makes it tricky is the darn metadata claims same As Shot WB and scene and LED temp for both! But looking into things like colors in sprocket holes that does not actually seem to be the case. So it seems the metadata is likely not reliable at all (which isn't a great thing). And I'm not sure that things actually were scanned using same settings as I thought, so at this point it's hard to know exactly what is going on beyond that the metadata appears likely a false mess for the outputs from Scanstation and that things might actually have been scanned in different ways each time contrary to what I thought, the quick demo frames and bits and the real scans at full res. Anyway, I need to get more info at this point to figure out what the real deal regarding anything going on is. All I can say is the early 5k samples I got behave totally differently (actually closer to how the metadata says they should, but that would be weird if it was supposed to be like that since native scanner data should not be REC709-gamut-like, so maybe something was set weird and it was just a coincidence that it worked closer to the metadata for gamut and the metadata is set wrong) than all new 6.5K samples and scans which all act virtually identically and that the metadata does not let programs give the proper colors for either set, especially not for the 6.5K stuff although doing a lot of manual adjusting of primaries and so on you can get them all looking correct.
  4. Looking at the files more it does seem like the 5k and 6.5k actually were not done exactly the same way. The 5k were exposed a bit more with a slightly different color balance used it seems (although the metadata seems to claim the LED balance was the same so not sure, maybe the color balance difference is because they were processed differently by scanner software at some stage or maybe the metadata doesn't report a difference in how the WB was actually really set or maybe ACR uses a twisted profile or maybe who knows what was done with the early 5K quick demo samples). So until I get some more samples done same time, exact same way for 100% sure, I suppose ignore my last few posts. That said, if I raise the whites to make them look more or less the same exposure wise and set white balance on same white part to get white balance the same, the 6.5K one needs a huge +38 saturation to look similar (tint and colors are still a touch different). Just messing with color temp and tint sliders in ACR, for this one particular image, it doesn't seem to affect saturation too much at all though. Although perhaps the scanner sensor and such is very sensitive to the balance of it's LED lights and how it sees film and maybe it records a lot less saturation if it sends a bit less light through or something and maybe even for this color it would do that even if that color doesn't act like that in ACR? I wouldn't think it should make THIS much of a difference from a bit of an exposure difference and slight, nothing huge, seeming shift in white balance on the scanner to the images overall saturation, but maybe? Anyway, since it seems they actually were not scanned the exact same way, I guess it is better to ignore what I said until I can verify it happens when the conditions truly were exactly the same for the scans. I'll try to get a sample 5K and 6.5K frame absolutely done the exact same way at the same time and see what happens. Maybe something was set weirdly or vastly different the 5k demos frommuch earlier on. Again, it's hard to say not running the machine myself. At the least though there do seem to be the somewhat strange things: 1. metadata suggests the data is more or less REC709 gamut which one would not think should be the case for native scanner output, of course the metadata could be and probably is wrong, but why put in incorrect metadata? data should really be stored in reference to something correctly given so programs know how to interpret it (now sure the data may still need some calibration adjustment after that, but the base starting point should at least be correct) Or if the metadata is correct, how can native RAW from the scanner end up being so ultra close to REC709 gamut? (side note: at least with the way the 5K samples were scanned they sure seem to work and act like they have REC709/sRGB-like data in terms of how saturated the primaries are (although with whatever was done with the 6.5K that doesn't seem to be the case, so it's all strange, trying to adjust exposure to equalize didn't match saturation at all, but ACR might do funny stuff with color engine, etc. etc.)) 2. how come if the DNG are true RAW files it puts the display rather than scene referred flag in the metadata and tells programs to treat them closer to JPGs and TIFFs than real RAW files (for instance ACR gives a points slider for color temp instead of the Kelvin scale, etc.), you'd think true RAW scanner output should be scene referred flag like it is for DSLR RAW images or for most stills film scanner RAWs
  5. Anyway all I can go by is what I received and what I was told and how the files are loading on my machine in ACR (and seemingly also Resolve, although I didn't use this too much). Maybe I was told incorrect stuff or something got toggled or there is a bug in ACR or something. All I can say is what I was told and what the metadata in the files and how they are acting. I do agree it would seem fairly strange for 6.5K files to be stored in reference to a different gamut than 5K ones (especially if it didn't have to de-Bayer and downscale to 5K but it seems like it just uses a smaller part of the sensor so that does make it quite strange). I don't know why it should be at all. The 5K (and 6.5K) files have metadata suggesting they are nearly REC709 gamut (although this appears to be wrong for 6.5K files at least, unless the difference is not due to some ACR/Resolve software bug that is for some reason making them load differently) and the 5K samples I got acted like REC709 in processing so that is why I was asking about how you get wide gamut out of this scanner. Now the 6.5K files I got later behaved differently. It does seems strange, but they do. As a bit of a sanity check I was give a tiny new set with 6.5K and 5K and in the new set the two sizes once again behaved differently. Maybe it's a bug in ACR or Resolve. Maybe the scanner somehow hit something different each time for 5k and not for 6.5k. Maybe the scanstation is doing more stuff to the lower file sizes. I dunno. If they truly are both in the same format, than there is some bug in some software on my end somewhere along the line. And then there is the question is the metadata correct or not and is the way they are loading as 5K or as 6.5K on my system correct. In one case, the scanner would not be producing wide gamut output but clipping to REC709. In the other case, at the least, the data output would be stored in some moderately wide gamut format. Loading the 5k samples into RAW software that was told to ignore metadata for color gamut and just pretend the data is stored in reference to REC709/sRGB primaries made them load looking fairly normal (do that to wide gamut format data and it looks all washed out). I didn't try that for the 6.5K files.
  6. I can find and show this demo at least to show the metadata for 6.5K files being wrong part at least. The 6.5K metadata says to process files like this as default load: If major changes are applied to the near REC709 gamut by altering the primaries to something like some custom wide gamut mode then people can get it to load more correctly like: With the 5K samples I got it would be like the above only the first image would have about the same saturation as the second as a default load, but with the color tones still like you see in the first image and because of that that is why I was questioning if it was storing native wide gamut or not, since they seemed to load fully saturated when interpreted as REC709 gamut. The 6.5K files I got don't seem to load fully saturated when interpreted as REC709 gamut.
  7. Well all I can say is the 5k DPX and DNG file samples I got appear to be in a different gamut than the ones I got in 6.5K. All done on the same machine with the same settings as far as I've been told. The 6.5K ones load into ACR or Resolve with noticeably less saturation than the 5K ones. I'm not running the machine myself, but that is what I can say based upon the files provided. I mean maybe something got toggled somewhere somehow. Again all I can go on is the files I got and what I was told. I'm not running the machine and was not there when stuff was scanned. The only thing I can think of is that to produce lower than 6.5K they might need to de-Bayer first (depends upon how it creates lower res) and once they are doing that, maybe they do more processing? Although if what you say is how it generates lower res then that would not seem to be the case, it shouldn't need to de-Bayer first. The metadata for all of them seems to be wrong. They are all stored with a forward color matrix that would make sense for something very close to REC709 gamut. Applying that to 5K files I got looks kind of correct, saturation looks normal, but you do see that there is a weird shift in some colors, red is too orange, some other colors don't balance relative to others (nothing that color temp or tint fix, they can fix one color but then send the other off), maybe subtle at first glance, but quite real in the end. Anyway, the fact that REC709 gamut applied to interpret the 5K files looks remotely normal at all would kinda imply the data is not in native scanner wide gamut but has been pre-processed. Applying the metadata or REC709 to the 6.5K files I got doesn't look correct at all, same as for 5K but also with saturation much too low. If you do large adjustments to Adobe ACR Calibration panel to adjust primary locations you can eventually get it to start doing stuff that looks normal. Anyway, how do you explain the forward matrix in the metadata being so similar to a forward matrix for REC709? Either it's completely wrong (which actually does seem to be the case for the 6.5K files) but in that case why do they put bogus metadata and not metadata that properly describes the gamut the data is stored in reference to? or it's correct and the data is not in native scanner gamut but processed down (As seems, sort of (not sure about the color twist), to be the case for the 5K files I got).
  8. opps OK even more simply hah: 6.5K scans actually do seem to be stored in a format that allows for wide gamut colors any scan under 6.5K does NOT seem to be stored in a format that allows for wide gamut colors (all my sample scans when I was first posting here were under 6.5K) it is not yet know whether the 6.5 scans actually deliver any wide gamut colors, although the data format would make it possible the metadata for color gamut seems to be somewhat wrong for all files scanned under 6.5K and utterly wrong for all files scanned at 6.5K, it tells you totally wrong info for programs on how to interpretate the colors so you need to RADICALLY custom adjust the primary locations in programs like ACR or use color charts and special software to build up LUTs, not sure why they don't give proper metadata
  9. More simply since my last post I have received some 6.5K scans in addition to my initial 5K demo scans: It seems that 6.5K scan mode has data stored in reference to some wide gamut format that probably could hold most colors film is capable of while any scans it does below 6.5K seem to be full re-mapped to a non-wide gamut format that seems like it would have to clip some colors film is capable of. It seems the metadata for color gamut is totally utterly wrong for ALL format outputs from the Scanstation at 6.5K and somewhat wrong for ALL output formats from Scanstation under 6.5K. Sub 6.5K stuff will load into Resolve automatically as REC709 and look kinda OK, but on close examination some colors are twisted, reds go orange, you get wrong relatively color balance, it can NOT be correct by color temp or tint or most normal color controls, you need to do more advanced adjustments like adjusting primary locations or use custom LUTs. It certainly seems like it would clip or remap down wider gamut colors that film can produce. The data does not seem to be set up to be able to handle wide gamut colors. 6.5K stuff loads in Resolve and ACR looking all dull and weird, since it is treated as something close to REC709 gamut but it is not at all REC709 gamut, metadata utterly wrong. To get proper colors it seems you must do extensive calibration adjustments to Adobe ACR primary locations or feed custom built LUTs into other programs so the data can be interpreted in the format that it is actually stored in which seems to be some custom moderately wide gamut format. These 6.5K scans might contain all colors 35mm film has or might not, the data certainly allows for it, whether it does or still gets clipped, not sure yet.
  10. Sorry I've been out of my own thread for a while. I've received more files (my original samples were all 5K and my new ones were mostly full 6.5K with a few 5K for additional comparison). I also got a little bit of an IT8 chart scanned. In the end it seems that full 6.5K scans from it ARE stored in some wide gamut format (contrary to the totally incorrect metadata which claims something similar to REC709 primaries). It's something weird though. Vaguely like P3, but definitely not P3. It means that you need to painstakingly feed it calibration charts and try to build a LUT or manually adjust primary locations by eye until the data matches what is on the 35mm prints. Kind of weird, the files really should have metadata that lists what primaries they are stored as! What is the point of making someone spend endless hours trying to say tune up adjustments to the primaries in Adobe ACR compared to what the metadata falsely claims they are? Or spend time trying to build some program to make a custom LUT out of chart data and so on. Sure you may need to fine tune to adjust how the scanner sees a certain stock or this or that but we are not talking about that but simply finding out what format the data itself is stored in reference too. Yeah, DSLR makers don't give you the proper metadata for the primaries of the RAW output of the cameras which is silly too but at least there the big stills processing software companies all test the sensors and figure it out and provide a RAW interpretation file for each camera model. It doesn't seem any of them do that for things as esoteric as motion picture film scanners. Now whether or not these stored in reference to some custom wide gamut format 6.5K scans actually store any wide gamut colors or the engine actually clips them down first and then stores the data is not yet known for sure yet. So far it seems a little suspicious that things seem to stay within REC709 triangle for the most part (and what doesn't might possible just be getting pushed beyond by grading choices). But then I may not have the proper stuff scanned yet, maybe the DI were done in REC709 before printout to film, not sure. So whether the scans can ever actually ever contain any colors beyond REC709 or not, as motion picture print film certainly can, not yet sure, but the data format CAN hold such colors though, contrary to my initial claims, BUT that is only because the new scans are full 6.5K scans and these seem to use a different reference for the data than any sub-6.5K scans from the Scanstation do. So, as just mentioned, on the other hand any scans done under the native 6.5K seem to NOT be stored in a wide gamut format, but some regular gamut format. It's vaguely like REC709 gamut, the saturation is about the same, but the primaries seem a bit off, they almost seem to have the same hue as for the full scans and yet the saturation remapped to be something like REC709/sRGB, kind of odd, not sure if that is a bug or not. It definitely doesn't seem capable of storing any colors beyond REC709 (beyond maybe a little twist) in the data format used for the 5K and under scans (which is what my original samples were done in). So it is seeming like I was correct and not correct. The scans 5K and under, which my original demo samples were, do NOT appear to allow for wide gamut color and seem remapped to REC709 max saturation (although with an odd twist to certain colors, almost like they left the primaries hues in some wide gamut format). But it seems that once you do full 6.5K scans that suddenly the data is stored in reference to a different color gamut, one that is definitely stored with saturation levels that seem more like something wide gamut, maybe vaguely along the lines of something could allow for P3-ish levels or just a bit less max saturation. Tentatively, the blue primary seems quite different from P3 though in particular. In the end it seems that full 6.5K scans from it ARE stored in some wide gamut format (contrary to the totally incorrect metadata). It's something weird though. Vaguely like P3, but definitely not P3. It means that you need to painstakingly feed it calibration charts and try to build a LUT or manually adjust primary locations by eye until the data matches what is on the 35mm prints. Kind of weird, the files really should have metadata that lists what primaries they are stored as. Whether they actually ever contain any colors beyond REC709 or not, not yet sure, the data format can hold such colors though. On the other hand any scans done under the native 6.5K seem to NOT be stored in a wide gamut format, but some regular gamut format. It's vaguely like REC709 gamut, the saturation is about the same, but the primaries seem a bit off, they almost seem to have the same hue as for the full scans and yet the saturation remapped to be something like REC709/sRGB, kind of odd, not sure if that is a bug or not. It definitely doesn't seem capable of storing any colors beyond REC709 (beyond maybe a little twist) in the data format used for the 5K and under scans (which is what my original samples were done in).
  11. Unfortunately and shockingly, it's starting to seem like I was correct. One scanner doing experiments and someone from another forum (apparently someone contacted some expert at film-tech and he seemed to come to the conclusion that it surprisingly outputted only REC709 color primary referenced data and simply clipped away all the extra rich, beautiful colors that 35mm film can record that go beyond that) seem to be reaching the same conclusion, that the Lasergraphics Scanstation 6.5K is absurdly appearing as if they remap the wide gamut output the hardware produces to the limited sRGB/REC709 color gamut in their software before outputting files. If they force the data to use REC709 primaries they seem to agree that the colors then look most natural and if they force the primaries to be interpreted as various wide gamuts it seems to come out over-saturated and/or odd. Nobody can seem to get a straight answer from Lasergraphics and they seem to be very evasive and stonewalling even to owner's of the machine who pay $$$$$$$ each year for service contracts. Honestly, they could simply add an option to allow for full native scanner gamut output and do it in less than a single afternoon but it seems they have no intention and maybe are afraid to do that since then they have to go tell everyone that all they scans they ever did, all the films archived by film archives and museums and so on had the color gamut clipped? It would seem a horrible shame to think of many films that got their one and only scan done without anyone realizing that the color gamut was clipped and that maybe for all time the original colors will be lost as the original film rots and fades and the digital archive failed to capture all the colors. I dunno how how a tens of thousands of dollar machine could do that when a $500 stills scanner over a decade ago could easily do wide gamut. And it's nothing to do with Bayer, almost every single DSLR has a Bayer sensor and even the 1st Canon 10D DSLR did wide gamut color. So does the camera inside of the Scanstation 6.5K. I dunno, I wish I was wrong, but it is starting to seem like I was likely correct. I mean maybe I and some others now are wrong and I'm saying very unfair things about Lasergraphics, don't take this as 100.000000% proven gospel, but it's sadly sure looking like I was correct. I'll be able to judge more myself when I get some full scans back soon and also get a color chart scanned. Hopefully I'll be proven wrong, doesn't seem like it. We'll see. If so, it's kinda frustating. I think even Cintel likely allows full wide gamut color capture. But the Scanstation seems to be clearly better in every other regard so kind of a shame, why have it crippled for now reason (if it really is)?
  12. Thanks! (The thing is you need to know what the scan data is stored in reference to to be able to properly translate it into whatever working space you chose. You could chose P3 and set a display to P3 but then if the data is NOT in P3 the software needs to know what it is in so it can translate it to P3. What if one (or all) of the primaries are in very different locations than the ones in P3. If you just treat it like P3 data the color balance will be all twisted in weird ways and the saturation for each channel will be way off. I just don't yet see how a motion picture scan can somehow magically not need this initial translation step that all other visual data seems to. From DSLRs it does (which is sort of what is inside of the modern motion picture scanners), from digital motion picture cameras it does, from stills film scanners it seems to. So far it almost seems like Lasergraphics already pre-does this step and just puts it in reference to REC709 color primaries (although not REC709 curve) at least for the Scanstation, perhaps not for the Director, or maybe it is actually closer to P3, but what exactly is it then and why do they not put it in any metadata and why does Resolve seem to default to loading DPX16 and DNG from it looking like it assumes it is REC709 and not some custom scene (scanner) referenced color gamut?)
  13. That has nothing to do with what color primaries things are in reference to though. I mean some of the Fuji DSLR were true RGB and they still had to have their RAW files opened with something that knew what color primaries to reference. And my Nikon 9000 ED stills scanner is true RGB per pixel and it's output all appears to need to be in reference to some primaries. I mean think in 1D and think of money. Say you give me $100,000 USD and then I say 'scan'/'convert' it to $100,000 Digital Dollars. And then Digital Dollars are not USD, not Pounds, not Lira, not Euros, etc. But you can't say oh you can take the $100,000 Digital Dollars and put them in whatever 'format' you want directly. I mean you can, but if I then called it Lira and gave you $100,000 Lira I think you might be a bit upset. You need to know what the Digital Dollars were in reference too. They were actually in reference to USD in this case, but if you don't account for that and then apply a conversion rate, it doesn't work out so well for one party. But supposing the scanner camera+filters had primaries really close in to the center of the CIE XY chart and you then viewed the data on a P3 or REC2020 monitor directly. It would like insanely over-saturated and the color balance would likely have a very strange twist to it. Or suppose the scanner camera+filters had primaries pretty far out, beyond P3, around REC2020 or something and you then just viewed it on a monitor set to REC709 gamut, it would look pale, washed out and likely with a strange twist to the color balance. That is what happens if you just take RAW data from a DSLR and don't apply any knowledge about what the camera's color primaries were. So that is not done. The software companies find out what the primaries are and then treat the RAW data in reference to those primaries and then convert it to a standard intermediate color management CIE XY D50 space and then from there they translate it to whatever working space you want to work in and then that is translated once again to whatever your display is set to.
  14. The data has to be stored relative to something though doesn't it? I'm still not understanding how now. Either simply whatever the filters on the scanner's camera are or something else if they decide to remap it. At the end of the day, it's basically just a DSLR inside the scanner in a sense, taking a digital picture of each frame. Any DSLR RAW photo stores it's data relatively to the raw performance of the sensor + color filters. Any program like say ACR in Photoshop that loads it properly goes to a custom table that the software maker creates to look up what they found the proper primary locations to be (would be nice if the camera makers just gave it in the metadata but they seem to wanna be all secretive). It would seem strange and annoying if the motion picture scan machines were to scan it relative to the scanner's primary locations and then not put that data in metadata and then you have to hope some software happens to have the proper internal table to handle it (which would even be fine, although it kinda seems like this is not something the softwares have in these cases, perhaps they do for Resolve and Cintel since that is their own scanner, it seems like maybe they do understand that scanner and load custom wide gamut primaries for that, maybe, haven't tested it yet, hard to find info, after tons of searching a little bit of info makes it seem like maybe that is the case) one just randomly apply color gamuts and see which one sort of looks semi-reasonable as the starting point. And most grading tools are not really meant to correct for wrong assumptions of where color primaries are located I don't believe and I think might be tricky to get to match exactly if you have to pick something that isn't exactly right at all. Maybe they figured since motion picture scanning is so obscure compared to DSLR work or digital motion picture work or stills scanning that a lot of software won't have the proper look up info so they just internally scale it all to REC709 gamut so anything can just load it as default with no mistakes, but that would seem quite a shame to lose those colors that print film can handle that are beyond REC709. Or maybe they expect one to have some test sample of colors for every stock they use (not easy if it's old stock in particular) or to use a spectro to measure various colors on a projected print and find out what they are and then compare to values in the scan and then custom build your own color table and apply your own custom input LUT to the scan data. But that's a helluva an undertaking and not even so easy to do super well, when it seems it should be able to be handled so much more trivially easy. I thnk I've heard of studios doing stuff like that back in the early days, but it would seem like we should be way past that. Maybe for a negative if you didn't ahve the primaries chosen eactly, it's not quite so bad as no final look has been chosen (but it would still help! and could still introduce a lot of tricky issues) but for a finished print with all the colors already locked in it's really strange seeming. But also strange is that if you use Resolve and set Custom under part of the color management panel and then you can select the input color space, which I think is you manually telling Resolve in what color gamut+curve the data is stored as (you select both separately if you wish) and it allows you do this when loading DPX16 format and you select something really wide like Arri Wide it just looks insane, wayyyy insanely over-satured and twisted in color. If you select a more mild wide gamut like P3, which should be somewhat close to a print gamut, I have to say it just kinda looks oversaturated to me. I don't have the print on hand to compare with, but it seems hard to believe it looks quite THAT intense. OTOH, if I tell it to treat the data in the DPX16bit linear Print file as REC709 it kinda looks about like what I believe the saturation on the print actually is. If it's stored in wide gamut I'd have thought that would make it look quite bland and maybe noticeably twisted in color and that P3 or something larger might make it look more ballpark. So the data just keeps seeming like it's awfully close to REC709 gamut. I'll check into more in case I made a mistake and somehow it turns out to be closer to P3, which would be good, but it seems like otherwise.
  • Create New...