Blackmagic Forum

They still don't work. They need to.

C'mon BMD. Get this done. We must have access to RAW controls like Saturation, Contrast, Midpoint, etc. in an RCM and ACES work flow.

Studio 16.1b1 for Windows.

Why? You will invalidate the image for IDT if you start screwing with it. But I agree, user should be able to decide what to do with his image. This might be an actual innovative idea these days.

It's not broken it's a feature.

Sent while walking

Jim Simon wrote:They still don't work. They need to.

C'mon BMD. Get this done. We must have access to RAW controls like Saturation, Contrast, Midpoint, etc. in an RCM and ACES work flow.

The whole point of ACES is that each device provides a one and only IDT.

But, one could argue that while contrast, midpoint and saturation should not be adjustable pre-IDT in the ACES philosophy there is no reason to prohibit exposure and RAW white balance adjustments before the IDT is applied.

Hendrik Proosa wrote:Why?

It's what I'm accustomed to having with CinemaDNG. I do most of my corrections in RAW.

And it has always worked great.

You can do it with other tools the same way. Just does not say raw. What I'm referring to is master offset and offset tools. In away as temp and tint in primary.

Margus Voll wrote:You can do it with other tools the same way.

RAW controls are "non-destructive". The other tools are "destructive".

That's usually why anyone working with RAW media prefers to have access to the RAW controls.

Jim Simon wrote:

Margus Voll wrote:You can do it with other tools the same way.

RAW controls are "non-destructive". The other tools are "destructive".

That's usually why anyone working with RAW media prefers to have access to the RAW controls.

Jim:

you might want to spend a bit of time on ACES central, they explain ACES very well as you seem to be missing some of the basic's about what ACES is and how it works...

end game, Margus has it right, ACES is non destructive,and there is only a few and minor diffrences between adjusting in the RAW tab, and adjusting in the color tools, and those are to do with how mfgs set debayer settings, Arri has slightly diffrent debayer settings depending on exposure value chosen in the raw tab, but other than that, nothing to be gained, and getting the right values into the IDT is a key to making the most of the tools on offer

Jim Simon wrote:RAW controls are "non-destructive". The other tools are "destructive".

That's usually why anyone working with RAW media prefers to have access to the RAW controls.

Sorry, but this is an idea from magic fairy land. 1+1=2 both before and after debayer, there are some specific cases where it could give some difference, but for most uses it makes no difference whatsoever. People claiming magic properties rising from raw development should spend some more time thinking over what is actually happening when pushing buttons and turning knobs.

Dermot Shane wrote:there is only a few and minor diffrences between adjusting in the RAW tab, and adjusting in the color tools

Still, there are differences. I wasn't limited when using cDNG, and I don't like being limited using BRAW.

I want that access.

Hendrik Proosa wrote:Dermot Shane wrote:
there is only a few and minor diffrences between adjusting in the RAW tab, and adjusting in the color tools

Temperature controls in RAW act differently than temperature controls in color tools. It's the first thing I do.
Highlight recovery is also different, and less effective in color tools.

Noel:

you may find the chromatic adapation OFX to be a better fit than the color temp controls in the UI

the OFX version is much like what Nucoda and Baselight have had for a few years now to sort color temp varaitions

the color temp in the Ui seems to be nothing more than x/y constrianed highlight hue offset control

the highlight recovery again (to me) is more about the sub optimal mapping of tools in Resolve as anything that's in the camera raw will also be there in ACES after the IDT, to me it seems you are talking about the responce of the tools, not the underlying color science?

Spend a day on Nucoda where the color tools are color space aware -or- set manualy by the artist, or Baselight where alot of the tools like Basegrade and FilmGrade are color space aware, both mapp tool responce to match the gradeing color space

best bet for any camera is to present the raw data to the IDT as close to the mfg's transform as possiable with as little muck'n about as possiable

if the shot was massivly f'd up on set and the color temp was a mile away from the optimal - that makes sense.. actualy gradeing a shot in the raw controls? not so much...

Noel Sterrett wrote:Temperature controls in RAW act differently than temperature controls in color tools.

Yes, changing the temperature of raw is definitly better than changing the temperature of cooked footage. The same goes for exposure.

Cary Knoop wrote:

Noel Sterrett wrote:Temperature controls in RAW act differently than temperature controls in color tools.

Yes, changing the temperature of raw is definitly better than changing the temperature of cooked footage. The same goes for exposure.

if, and only if, it gets you closer to the expected input of the IDT? assuming we ar only talking about ACES, i have zero idea about RCM, don't use it...

but the further you get from what the mfg expects on input to their IDT the more likely you are to create artifacts downstream of the IDT

i can see the use of exposure and real color temp to get an image that's been messed up in camera to a point that the IDT can do it's best work...

but that's not what Jim is on about it seems? he's talking about gradeing before the IDT, and claiming ACES is destructive....

i also have zero idea about the BMD camera RAW, have not seen a frame of it...

but i do have three features shot on ArriRAW, and one more shot on RED in my system today (and a bunch of commericals shot on ArriRAW or RED) not once did i feel the need to touch the RAW controls, but i mainly see footage shot by grownups and it's a rare day that they screw something up to the point that needing to adjust exposure or temp on the raw is even considered

Dermot Shane wrote:i mainly see footage shot by grownups

CMOS is essentially daylight balanced. So if you shoot RAW with tungsten the temp needs adjustment even if you're a grownup.

Noel Sterrett wrote:

Dermot Shane wrote:i mainly see footage shot by grownups

CMOS is essentially daylight balanced. So if you shoot RAW with tungsten the temp needs adjustment even if you're a grownup.

temp settings are taken from metadata created by DP/DiT, so yes it may need adjsutment, and they set it correctly, so.. no i do not need to adjust temp as it arrives at the doorstep well suited to matching the mfg's IDT

if for creative reasons i feel the need to adjsut temp, and working in Resolve i would more likely be using L*a*b anyway... but the OFX is a good choice too, not too likely to use the gain hue offset really, either with a ball, or constrianed to a axis as the tint/temp controls seem to be

but one choice i would not make is using temp in the RAW controls, with the caveat that if the raw presents a mile and a half off, then i would use those controls, but really only then, so rarely used / needed / wanted

Dermot Shane wrote:and they set it correctly

So happy for you.

ahhhh like i said, i get stuff through the door shot by grownups for the most part

but even with a good DP, DiT, gaffer, Ac's stuff happens.... that's when i would look at adjusting tint/temp in the raw tab

creative gradeing , mucking about with gamma curves before the IDT? errrr.... not so much, or really not ever for me....

same as the belief that somehow ACES is destructive... time to head over to ACES Central and ask the smart folks there